Dismissed

Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2020A482/18500/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application seeking quashing of FIR and criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Court held that allegations of false implication and alleged valid marriage were disputed questions of fact requiring trial, failing to disclose abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; interim order vacated.

Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and Another Vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18500 of 2018 Applicant :- Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tanu Roopanwal,Abhishek Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Dwivedi,Deepankar Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 17.9.2017 and criminal proceedings of Case No.1318 of 2018 (State Vs Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and another) under sections 354, 504, 376, 120-B IPC, arising out of Crime No.95 of 2017, P.S. Sidhari, District Azamgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in highly belated F.I.R. lodged after a period of about one year from the alleged incident; that as per averments made in F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no.2, her daughter Priya was called by applicants on the pretext of providing her admission in nursing course at Varanasi and on such assurance, opposite party no.2 sent her daughter with applicant nos.1 and 2 and when she did not come back, her relative informed her that she is staying with her and will be sent next day, but when she did not return till one week, opposite party no.2 and his relatives went to the place of applicants and found prosecutrix weeping, who disclosed that applicant no.2 is pressurizing her for making marriage with applicant no.1 and they have also obtained her signatures on plain papers and told her that she has become wife of Sanjeev and also made obscene activities outraging her modesty and taken her photos by mobile and also threatened that if she refused to make marriage with him, they will defame her and cause death of her family members; that entire prosecution story is absolutely false and concocted; that the daughter of opposite party no.2 eloped with applicant no.1 out of her sweet will and they made marriage in temple and also got the marriage registered; that after lodging of F.I.R. by opposite party no.2, applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.18176 of 2017 for quashing of F.I.R. and this Court vide order dated 7.9.2017, refusing to quash F.I.R., granted them protection till submission of charge sheet, copy at Annexure No.8; that Investigating Officer without properly investigating the matter has submitted charge sheet against applicants under sections 354, 506, 376, 120-B IPC; that Investigating Officer did not take into consideration the marriage certificate copy at Annexure No.9 with regard to moving of application for marriage registration dated 27.5.2016 regarding marriage in temple on 1.5.2016; that applicant no.1 has also filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against his wife Priya, daughter of opposite party no.2; that after submission of charge sheet, applicant no.1 moved another application to S.P. Azamgarh, who has ordered for further investigation with regard to marriage certificate provided by applicant no.1; that from above facts, it is very much clear

¶8

that Priya, daughter of opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of applicant no.1 and no offence under sections 354, 504, 376, 120-B IPC is made out against any of the applicants; that in F.I.R., there is no whisper of offence under section 376 IPC and the statements of prosecutrix under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. may not be relied wherein upon tutoring she has also made allegations of rape against applicant no.1; that the prosecution of applicants is nothing but only abuse of process of Court and in order to secure the ends of justice, proceedings of criminal case, are liable to be quashed.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing of charge sheet and proceedings of case and contended that the delay in lodging of F.I.R. in such matters may not be fatal to prosecution and the reason for delay has been explained in F.I.R. itself because the opposite party no.2, a widow lady was under apprehension due to threats by applicants; that in her statements under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., prosecutrix has fully supported the allegations made in F.I.R. as well as with regard to committal of rape by applicant no.1; that the contention of alleged marriage between applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2 are absolutely false and incorrect; that the entire proceedings and documents of alleged marriage appears to have been forged and fabricated by applicants on the blank papers, over which signatures of Priya were obtained; that the daughter of opposite party no.2 never went to Shastri Ghat Varunapul, Varanasi for making marriage with applicant no.1 in temple or elsewhere and the marriage registration certificate shows that it has been got prepared by misusing her passport size photo, as photographs of daughter of opposite party no.2 were obtained along with signatures on certain papers on the pretext of providing her admission in nursing course at Varanasi; that since applicants being distantly related to opposite party no.2 were believed, but betrayed her; that the petition for restitution of conjugal rights has been filed with malafide intentions to misguide the Court, which is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is no marital relationship between applicant no.1 and daughter of opposite party no.2; that no writ petition was filed by daughter of opposite party no.2 for quashing of F.I.R. before this Court within her knowledge; that application has filed with false and incorrect allegations and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submissions made at the bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which require evidence and cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283, and the applicant has failed to prove any prima facie case.

¶11

Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, the version and counter version of the parties with regard to alleged marriage or taking of daughter of opposite party no.2 for admission in nursing course, which are matters of fact. I find that these facts may be decided only upon evidence before Trial Court, which evidence cannot be considered by this court under extra ordinary powers under sections 482 Cr.P.C. As far as further

¶12

investigation with regard to genuineness of marriage certificate is concerned, the further investigation report shall be acceptable by Magistrate. In the circumstances there is no sufficient ground to disbelieve the statement of prosecutrix under section 164 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

¶13

In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that learned counsel for the applicants has failed to show that there is any abuse of process of court or likelihood of miscarriage of justice for prevention of which the exercise of inherent powers by this Court is required. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed accordingly.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶16

However, if the applicants appear before the court below and move application for bail, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.2.2020

¶18

Tamang

Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev @ Puneet Chaurasiya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Pal Singh @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shayam Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jai Chand Jaiswal and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.